Tbh this is the logical end-state of a poorly-regulated for-profit healthcare system
Poorly regulated economy really
Capitalism really
Which is why I predict events like this are about to become a lot more common.
of a *general oligarchy
Yup!
Man, people really think this is actually going to change things and it's hilarious.
Well, hilarious in that I have to laugh to keep from breaking down in tears. On one side you have people who will do anything to squeeze every last penny from our quickly decaying corpses, and on the other we have a bunch of people who did little more than bitch and moan until someone does something drastic and ultimately futile in which case they... mostly continue to sit back and watch while assuming everything is somehow magically going to fix itself for them.
Things might change if murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system becomes the standard in America. But one outlier incident won’t change anything.
G4S and Securitas will make a fortune off security services for execs.
Knowing their hiring standards it sounds like a job there would be a ridiculously easy way to get privileged access to these people. Nah they'll use higher quality than that.
Invest now! Wooooo, capitalism baby!
Yes, it'll change things like the French Revolution did, where it kept going and going, executing more and more people who had less and less to do with it, finishing with Robespierre, who argued against executing people at all.
When the laws don't apply anymore, the law of the jungle will catch up to you.
You mean the law of the strong against the weak? We're not winning that battle. We can't even agree to vote consistently, much less in our best interest. What makes you think we can all agree on who's the right person that needs killing?
I never said the right people are going to get killed. People are just going to get killed in chaos, sometimes its aligns with the goals of others. This sucks.
Yes, we can't afford to lose any CEOs because it might cause innocent people to be killed. Meanwhile those CEOs are stacking bodies through negligence and folks like you want to defend them. You just confirmed how you'd steer the trolley.
CEOs are already killing innocent people en mass. If you have a more effective way of doing things at this point I’m all ears.
Voting works, when people actually do it. It doesn't work fast, but it works better than random killings.
And in the mean time while you go around shaming people for not voting endless human suffering will continue to happen because you think vigilante justice to right the wrongs in our society is more wrong than just letting the elites continue to stamp on the necks of the people.
Random?
Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don't like, clearly things will magically get better.
How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what's right or wrong?
Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.
Yep. It's pretty simple and straightforward.
kill everyone we don't like
Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.
And these people know they're killing people, but they don't care because they're making so much money off of it.
So no. It's not "everyone we don't like." It's people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.
This isn't a "Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?" moral conundrum, it's a "If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?" moral conundrum.
Most people who would say "it's the wrong thing to do" for the first one would say "it's the right thing to do" for the second.
Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.
EXACTLY. These guys are trying to pose this conundrum in such a ridiculous disingenuous way. Like “if we allow someone to kill a person who has systemically killed untold numbers of people then what’s next, killing a baby?!” its absolutely baffling how these people think that’s an argument based in any level of reality or logic.
It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.
The justice system should cast justice, and for that we need political pressure and reform. Self justice is not right in that way
The justice system should cast justice
Indeed, but it has failed to do so and now millions of people are suffering.
So it needs to be changed politically. If the people actually voted in their interest there would be no problem. If they vote against themselves they are at fault themselves. Thats how democracy works, even if its sad
Y’all had 35+ years to do it the right way. Too late, we’re gonna do it the hard way now.
murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system
How would that work, in practice? Who decides which companies are putting evil into the system? Who decides which CEOs to kill? Why not kill the board of directors and VPs as well? Why not kill the nurses and doctors who refuse to treat a patient unless they have health insurance? Why not kill the investors that provided the funds? Why not kill the politicians who made the laws? Why not kill the people who voted for those politicians?
Yeah, that'll definitely work.
Yeah you’re right, CEOs should just be able to destroy the lives of Americans without any repercussion and anybody who tries to do anything about it is bad and wrong. Man, thank you for showing me my error! You truly are the only intelligent person here. You are the chosen one.
The argument to ask who casts justice and decides the barrier is a legit one. You are using a strawman argument against him by saying they are in favor of allowing destruction of the lives of Americans happen. Such tactics are mostly used by populists and we do not need to stoop to such levels
anybody who
tries to do anything about itperpetrates an extrajudicial contract killing is bad and wrong.
FTFY
Go ahead and do anything you want, nobody is stopping you. Protest, boycott, don't pay your bills, be my guest. But when you use a silenced handgun to shoot a man in the back who had not been convicted of any crimes, you are unequivocally bad and wrong.
The false dichotomy in this conversation is insane. What in your addled brain indicates to you that I was suggesting that CEOs should be able to ruin people's lives without repercussions? You don't need to be particularly intelligent to understand that anonymous masked gunmen assassins are a bad thing, it's common fucking sense.
The judicial system is designed to favour these people. It has already failed, and cost countless lives. You’re suggesting something that is already in place and failing at a catastrophic level. I’m not going to sit here and pretend you have some kind of greater intelligence or moral high ground for pushing an idea that is proven to not work and costing endless human suffering. That would be fucking idiotic.
Again, false dichotomy. Your logic makes no sense.
The judicial system is not perfect, we can at least agree on that. But that does not necessarily indicate that the system has totally failed; it's far more rational to assume that the system should be reformed.
But sure, let's go along with your first wild assumption and agree that the system has failed and must be replaced. Your second wild assumption is that the best way to replace the judicial system is by hiring masked men to assassinate CEOs.
If that's not your assumption, than I don't understand why you're supporting it. You could have been like okay, this obviously isn't a good way of dealing with things, but it does raise a discussion about the inability of the legal system to appropriately punish CEOs. But instead, you didn't bother, you just went right ahead and said this seems like a great alternative to the judicial system, we should keep doing this. Absolutely unhinged
Whats unhinged is expecting reform from a system that is designed to actively stop reform, and using that to justify protecting people that are responsible for death and suffering at that magnitude for personal gain. Your mentality baffles me, but I guess that mentality is exactly why we are here in the first place. Fucking liberals man, if you’re not going to help at the very least get out of the way.
No, I'm not going to help you murder CEOs without just cause. I'll keep standing right here, thanks very much.
If you think that denying people healthcare for profit to the point where huge numbers of them are dying isn’t just cause then you’re just straight up a shit person.
I don't know the details of why United Healthcare denied so many claims. I don't know to what extent this particular man had influence or control over those decisions. Despite your blustering, neither do you.
Even if I had omniscient knowledge of the entire process, I am quite certain that the moral liability of this individual human being would not be such that he would be subject to execution under any reasonable justice system. Maybe he did belong in jail, but never in a million years did he deserve to be executed without a fair trial.
A fair trial is impossible in this system. You’re delusional.
Like look at the up and downvotes man. Nobody agrees with you here.
Haven't we spent the last several years trying judicial reform? And honestly things are worse. We have one of the most openly corrupt Supreme Court Justices right now and they've made several extremely unpopular decisions lately. Also all decent chances to enact that reform recently died, with several indications that it will become even more corrupt soon. 'Not perfect' is an extreme understatement of the current reality.
When they deny and delay healthcare they’re extrajudicially killing people and murdering them first is self defense.
How’s that boot taste?
I feel like you are thinking about this wrong. From where I sit I think it's more likely that you're expanding the target list than helping put the brakes on this kind of vigilante behavior.
You aren't wrong in a lot of what you're saying though. Street justice rarely stays just for long. This may also be an isolated incident. However, some kind of pushback against this system is inevitable. If the people you listed don't help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety, and to be honest I don't think meaningful change is possible until they are. Strikes, sit-ins, and protests have only ever been effective when paired with the implied threat of physical violence if demands are not met. Greed needs to be deincentivized in one way or another. Governments and corporations don't seem interested in making that happen so action like this seems increasingly likely to me.
I don't have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.
If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society. There is no line that you can draw between yourself and people [who] don't help improve the situation. We are all, by definition, a part of that group, for as long as it takes until the situation does improve. And that's why I'm trying to explain that this kind of action is taking all of us further away from whatever improved version of society you envision.
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society.
Being intentionally obtuse doesn't add anything to the discussion. Your average person, especially those in other countries, don't view themselves as responsible for healthcare costs in America. Whether or not that is technically true is irrelevant as their contribution is not nearly as important as the others on your list. Take away the line about voters and maybe the doctors and nurses, though some would likely disagree with that part, and you've got a pretty accurate list of the people most responsible for the situation. They oversee these systems and are therefore seen to be responsible for associated outcomes.
I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I'm trying to open your eyes to the fact that there is no list that can be drawn up. It's an impossible task to separate human beings from the conditions of their environment. The system is inherently flawed, it doesn't matter who becomes the CEO, they are all incentivized to follow the same playbook.
What you suggest has been tried countless times in the past. When you remove the people occupying positions of power, others just take their place. You're ultimately advocating removing individual human beings, when you should be advocating changing the system entirely. Instead of trying to overthrow and take over the system that exists, you should be trying to escape the system and build something better.
I think we've already established that the list you made was a pretty good one so the suggestion that a list of those most responsible can't be made is pretty odd to me.
Let's say I agree with you that violence is never the answer, what's your alternate suggestion? Your thinking seems to be that oppressed people need to reason with their oppressors but what happens when they don't listen? How long are people supposed to suffer before alternate methods are morally justified? What sort of escalation path exists within your moral framework? It seems to me that your reasoning ends with "just wait longer and hope justice prevails" but at some point that becomes untenable.
Again, that may or may not be what's going on here but clearly some people think it is so the discussion is worth having.
I think we’ve already established that the list you made was a pretty good one so the suggestion that a list of those most responsible can’t be made is pretty odd to me.
No we haven't. On what grounds are you taking doctors and nurses off the list? They're the ones with medical training, if anything they're the ones with the ultimate power over who gets medical help and who doesn't. They choose to sell their services to the highest bidder. But they hold no responsibility? Absurd.
The same is true for voters, or any other group of people. Probably the only groups that could even dream of limited liability would be religious cults/fundamentalists like the Amish, because they are at least making a good faith attempt to avoid participating in society any more than necessary. Or remote uncontacted tribes I suppose.
Let’s say I agree with you that violence is never the answer, what’s your alternate suggestion?
Dude wtf, I never said that. I literally already addressed this in my original reply to you, like an hour ago?
I don’t have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.
I can only waste so much of my time going in circles, I'm out.
Lol and how do you expect to overthrow and take over this system if not by violence? By magic?
I just feel bad for everyone because you're too stupid to see that you're only hurting yourselves with this childish exaltation of violence. I can clearly see that you people are drowning and it pains me, but you're lashing out wildly in such a way that it makes it dangerous for someone to try to save you.
What's even more distressing is that you aren't alone out there. There are also children drowning out there right beside you, but you're making it too difficult to provide any assistance because of your wild flailing. Long after we are dead, the inability of our generation to react maturely and productively to the reality of modern society will continue to haunt our descendants.
It doesn't create good outcomes directly. It's indiscriminate, highly subject to individual biases and extremely destabilizing to society. It's definitely not a good thing if it keeps happening over a long time.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence. Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It's how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It's never the right answer, but at some point it's the only answer left.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale are you alluding to? That hasn't ever occurred in America. What usually happens is that people vote, and that's what causes the government to act.
Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.
We got unions and workers protections because of voting and political pressure. The modern framework of labor rights in the US was almost entirely created by FDR, who was swept into office by an overwhelming majority of voters as a result of the Great Depression. He passed a ton of legislation as part of the New Deal and utilized political pressure on the Supreme Court when they tried to strike down the legislation. It was strengthened and expanded by JFK and LBJ, two more presidents who were elected with strong mandates from the American people.
There is no scenario where gunning down healthcare CEOs applies any sort of political pressure to anyone. I know that it feels like it means something to the common person who doesn't understand much about the functioning of government or business. But I can promise you that it means very little to the people with the power to make decisions, aside from reminding them of the necessity of private security.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale
The battle of cripple creek involved shootings and dynamite explosions between workers and mine owners and was only stopped once the governor stepped in and helped negotiate a compromise.
I wasn't trying to imply anything close to a full on war, but violence was a lot more common in early clashes for worker rights. Protests and strikes much more frequently were backed by violent behavior including several deaths.
As you go back further in history, essentially everything was decided by violence. But the balance of power has shifted with the rapid advance of technology. Violent behavior is less likely now than ever to make a difference, in my opinion.
And also that's not what this is. There wasn't any manifesto, there wasn't any protest, there weren't any unions going on strike. It was just one man gunning down another man in cold blood. To what end?
We could start with health insurance and pharmacy benefit manager companies, and then we can move onto “defense” contractors. If that’s not enough we can then move onto real estate investment companies and if there’s still time to make an even stronger point we can go after the greedflation grocery conglomerates. If that’s still not enough there’s the technofascists running the big tech companies and spying for the government. There’s plenty of targets out there who have it coming and I hope none of them every sleep peacefully again.
Good luck with that, Rambo
Laughs in French revolution
It might not change anything but it certainly raises spirits
Well it's a good thing people are happy with the continued state of affairs where nothing has fundamentally changed!
It's the only thing that's ever changed things. Nonviolent movements are great but behind every successful one there is a separate violent movement forcing power to the table. The myth of successful nonviolent movements has been propagated as another tool of control.
It depends on how many people succeed in offing CEOs quick enough before the state clamps it’s power down. The state reacts relatively slowly so hopefully a lot more copycats (or our smiling hero) get a few more names off the list to really make a fucking point.
The state is gonna respond with more dystopia.
I'd encourage everyone to be careful with this type of thinking, because I'm seeing it a lot. Characterizing situations as having only two unpleasant options ("two tracks" in this case) is a classic strategy to rationalize violence. Gangs use it, terrorist groups use it, and even governments trying to justify wars use it (e.g. remember Bush's "You're either with us or against us").
It's a textbook false dichotomy, and it's meant to make the least unpleasant option presented seem more palatable. This situation is not as simple as "either you're in favor of insurance companies profiting off of denied healthcare of millions or you're ok with murdering a CEO"
I want to live in a world where profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes. The third option here is that CEOs be paid less and be held accountable by their employees similarly to a democracy. But that means changing the system - which won't happen until the CEOs are convinced the system doesn't work. Right now, we regular folks are the only ones for whom the system doesn't work. This uncertain future for CEOs is load sharing.
Precisely. The last few months have been nothing but trolley problem after trolley problem because rich people are never held accountable.
profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes.
Give them actual golden parachutes and they get both.
Don't want to be too much of a downer, but if enough rich folk decide the system does not work for them. These rich folks will fight to change the system to function more like China and Russia. Where the peons have limited political expression and swift removal of 'subversive' speech.
Look at the events of the past few years, and especially the past few months in the US, and tell me that they're not already trying to do so.
Actually, ya. That is on point.
They tried to silence people with social media. I’m banned on every major platform for being anti capitalist anti imperialist anti fascist and pro murdering health insurance CEOs (ok, that’s a new one years after being banned, but my sentiment has always been there).
They can’t stop the fediverse. They can’t silence us like they used to.
Well I'm open to other ideas but I haven't seen any viable ones yet.
tldr: one idea would be challenging their ability to hide behind licensed MDs who are paid to shoulder liability
This is actually my field, and I've spent countless hours of my life arguing with these insurance companies on behalf of patients they've denied, (losing more often than I've won, but you have to try). They suck.
When they're being exceptionally unreasonable, the bridge-burning hail mary I would throw would be threatening the license of the provider that denied the appealed claim. It has worked a surprising number of times.
Most people don't realize that it's not just paper-pushers at insurance companies who are denying claims. Those folks can routinely deny things that policy excludes, but if it's a judgement call or a challenge that their policy isn't meeting medical necessity, they hide behind doctors on their payroll who are putting their license on the line when they have to say that the insurance company is justified. Those individuals can be reported to their licensing board or even sued. Short of voting in universal healthcare one day, I think this is the most direct route to challenge this nonsense.
I appreciate your measured takes and inside point of view, more of both are always welcome (not that you need my invitation lol, you're basically famous around here).
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I'm not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don't blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Our institutions no longer fix our problems, and that's growing worse, not better - the deck is getting stacked more and more heavily against us as time goes on.
I'm not advocating mass violence. What I am saying is that executives who create conditions like these, for people suffering under an increasingly-dysfunctional and hopeless system like this, should absolutely expect their lives to be in danger on the daily - out of just pure pragmatism. I'm not putting a value judgment on that, I'm saying it is flat out inevitable.
CEOs frequently measure any and all human events as costs to be managed. Especially these insurance executive pieces of shit. I don't see why a certain number of fairly predictable CEO murders resulting from their hideous behavior should be any different.
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Relevantly, I think this also makes a good argument that "how we solve things" as a society is as important the problems we're solving. When our institutions are weakened or bypassed (through corruption, lobbying, or vigilantism), it's destabilizing and leads to bigger issues. I hate how much power insurance companies have over care too, and I get it, I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the "only remaining option". It's almost always pure rationalization coming from people's anger rather than truly being our only option.
That's a great point. And truly, it speaks to what may be the root of the problem - skin in the game. Skin in the game shapes how we solve problems. When leaders make it plain they have none, people notice and reasonable problem solving falls apart.
At some point, I personally blame Jack Welch at GE decades ago for pioneering & normalizing this (thanks Behind the Bastards) - companies shifted from prioritizing outcomes for stakeholders to only prioritizing outcomes for shareholders. Historically I think that was because better outcomes for all stakeholders was seen as the primary driver of better outcomes for shareholders. Jack Welch realized they aren't nearly as coupled as everyone thought - over the short term only, a crucial distinction! To be fair, someone else would have, too, if he were never born.
For an example, he pioneered the tactic of closing profitable manufacturing plants that were not as profitable as he wanted - and despite the net loss of profit, and the sudden deep trauma to a town full of human lives - investors liked it. It's the origin of "line goes up".
Oversimplifying a complex issue of course because I don't want this to get any longer, but that behavior really does make two different systems of inputs and outputs that are often in competition with each other. One system for investors, and one for everyone else. And a growing number of people see it, see the different outcomes, and are rightfully enraged.
With that said, angry people are easy to manipulate and abuse, which is counterproductive and bad, and I'm not so much disagreeing with you as offering another point of view. Cheers!
Yup, I think we're totally on the same page here.
Fuck yeah behind the bastards out in the wild!
Also… anyone know of Jack Welch’s whereabouts these days? For you know …reasons…
I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option
This gets harder and harder to deny when we're still talking about most of the exact same issues that have gotten worse, not better for almost two decades. How many elections and protests and awareness campaigns and volunteer drives are people expected to do with no meaningful progress?
At some point it starts to simply feel like a parent telling their child 'not now, later' over and over again with zero intention of ever actually doing anything. No where in life are you allowed to infinitely delay with no progress (especially to your boss at work), so why should the public accept the same?
Three decades! Three! Not two! I’m 35 and had a sick parent growing up. This has been my entire life, my parents fighting with these ghouls until eventually my father died from lack of proper care.
How do lay people being denied coverage find out who their “doctor” is to go after their license?
Sounds like a lot of paperwork and waiting around and sick people don’t have a lot of time for that. A bullet is faster.
Derail the train
I believe that is in process.
You're absolutely right and I'd argue it boils down to the fundamental error in OP's shower thought:
Killing the CEO doesn't save the lives on the other track. It just adds another dead body to the pile.
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track
Why wouldn't it, though? Every CEO makes a profit/loss calculation in their head. Now they've got one more potential entry in their loss column. We're not talking about saving lives already taken by UHC, but future lives that other CEOs might cost.
We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren't going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
After all, if they're already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what's another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
They'll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
That only remains true so long as this doesn't turn into a copycat situation, which it very well might given how numerous the people with motives are, how easy it is to get guns in this country, and how fervently the people of this country are supporting the gunman.
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren't going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
The key word there is 'remote likelihood'. My point was that if it goes from 'remote' to 'possible' or 'likely', then it will start getting factored into decision making.
what's another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
There's a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They'll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses
Unlike fines, which can be passed off as a cost of doing business, their lives are irreplaceable. And once the logic has been hammered into their heads, it can start influencing their decisions.
There's a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They won't. Anyone who has a semblance of belief that their decisions in the job might actually cause their own death just won't do the job. Instead, it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
And once they've internalized the idea that any decision made by any one employee of the company, including their predecessor CEOs, can put them in danger, it's pretty attenuated from the actual decisions that they themselves make.
It's a dice roll on a group of people, which isn't enough to influence the individuals in that group.
it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
Who then get removed from society
It's a dice roll on a group of people, which isn't enough to influence the individuals in that group
Depends how many dice you roll. That's my point. If you roll enough dice, it can start affecting decisions.
This is ludicrous. A person faced with unpopular decisions that might send assassins after him is going to make himself harder to assassinate, not less hated.
So you're saying that, given a choice between
- Earn 10M a year and live in peace and obscurity
- Earn 15M a year and run the risk of being assassinated.
You'd take the 2nd choice and hire bodyguards. Sure, you might. But not everybody would.
They're being intentionally dense. But we understand your point. Some people were born to lick the boot. Let them stay dumb.
You'd take the 2nd choice and hire bodyguards. Sure, you might. But not everybody would.
No, the question isn't whether everyone would. It's whether anyone would. And the answer is obviously yes.
So now the position is filled. Did the healthcare system change?
My argument is that no, you can't kill your way to reform on this one. There will always be another CEO to step into that place.
And the ratio of dead would-be assassins to CEOs would also pile more bodies on.
Next time you take a break from licking the boot, read a history book. Do you know how many corpses are in the ground today because a few folks said, "We shouldn't have to work seven days a week." A fucking lot.
Thanks to them, we have the concept of "weekends".
Change is written in blood.
This is not a one-off example, there are thousands.
That is reality. Welcome to it.
Which business leaders were killed on the way to securing a 5-day workweek? Those gains were achieved through direct action affecting business bottom lines: strikes, sabotage, and direct action on the streets, not secret targeting of soft targets.
Put another way: there were two attempted assassinations of Donald Trump in the past year. Do you think that will change his political actions to be more popular?
Do you think that United Healthcare's next CEO will suddenly forgo profits? What about hospital administrators, pharma CEOs, or any of the other tens of thousands profiting off of this fucked up system? Do you think that a mass assassination campaign will actually happen in large enough volume to change any behavior at all?
Whilst I can’t disagree with what you say, and I’m glad you’ve pointed it out, I’d include one caveat. “If” capitalism is heading towards an even more extreme iteration of itself then, perhaps, the (currently false) dichotomy you mention may come to exist. I kinda hope we don’t end up in such a binary struggle but… humans. Shrugs broadly.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Always two, there are.
Well, in the total picture the best option of all would be Justice System which is Just and hence stop people causing massive numbers of deaths for profit, which is not what we have (especially in the US) and is even getting worse.
Ultimately all Just venues (I was going to say "non-violent", but "lawful" violence is still "violence", so even in a Just system, Force would still be used on the ones profiting from mass deaths) seem to have been closed in the last couple of decades.
The more options get closed, the more people will only see as options to either meekly accept the death of a loved one (or oneself) due to the actions of the people leading Health Insurance companies or vigilante vengeance, since the State has over the years removed itself from enacting Justice against the wealthiest in society, which would've been the best option of all (not least because it prevents the deaths of both the victims of guys like this CEO and of guys like the CEO)
Indeed, dichotomies presented in arguments are more often than not false, but sometimes they're true.
No I think most of us recognize there are a lot of other tracks out there. It's just we've tried most of the other tracks (protests, voting, thoughts and prayers, etc) and most of them haven't made anything better. So... there are only a couple of tracks not tried yet. But already this one sure has made way more waves than 99% of protests ever have.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don't see this as real and viable currently.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There's so much misinformation in the world today.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don't see this as real and viable currently.
I can't dispute that. More of the US workforce would need to unionize for it to be possible.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There's so much misinformation in the world today.
I think if it reached a certain point of popularity, it would become so self evident of its benefits for the working class that it would snowball. But it would take a lot of education and time.
If we look at how Spain was able to have a libertarian socialist revolution, it apparently took 75 years of steady education (some through independent ferrer schools) and organizing before the populace as a whole was educated enough on the concepts and practiced enough through militant unionization to finally attempt a mass resistance movement.
I suspect the U.S. higher literacy rate combined with the internet may reduce the time needed.
Union activity has existed for decades and this utter failure of the social contract has been going on just as long. The unions only fought for themselves (understandably) while non union workers were manipulated by media to be against unionization. That’s unlikely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon. We’re too divided, too manipulated, and most importantly it takes too long when people have already been suffering for decades. I see this going the route of stochastic terrorism. This guy fired the first shot of a lopsided future (current?) war.
I agree with you but we’re too divided to go on a general strike. Stochastic terrorism against the rich? Now we’re talking.
There’s a lot of other tracks out there that haven’t been taken, such as our government regulating health insurance in the form of single payer so this doesn’t happen, or our government using its justice system to go after it’s worse actors, but no, shareholder value comes first (even when shareholder value requires murder).
So this is the track we’re on and I fully fucking support it and hope he’s just the first of many to meet this well deserved fate.
Fuck around find out. We’re the most armed population on the planet and you think they’re gonna continue to get away with this shit? The public is united across the political spectrum in their support for this guy getting shot. I hope his ilk never sleeps another peaceful night again. I’m just surprised it took this long. I hope there are copycats.
These people killed my father. I am living for this right now. If I had less to lose and more skills to do it I’d be copycatting it myself and taking one for the team. These people need to die. They’re overdue to meet their makers and account for the mass deaths they’ve caused and profited from!!! via capitalism.
FBI: I’ve got an alibi, I was at work.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing that it's a false dichotomy, but do you have viable alternatives?
I don't presume to have the answers, but there are plenty of alternatives if we're comparing them to murder in the street.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies. It happens all the time, and the more people that know about it, the better. (They rely on people being unfamiliar with how they operate)
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It's a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we've come close at least twice in recent history.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies
That's a bandaid solution at best.
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
This country couldn't even turn down the guy paraphrasing Hitler, whose promised to finish gutting the ACA. The chances of us seeing universal healthcare through "the right way" isn't good.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people and hoping for the best, not to solve healthcare reform in a Lemmy comment section.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people
And that point is undermind by those ways not being viable.
You're entitled to that belief, but I've seen the first one work in my field firsthand, as I said. We've also seen universal work in multiple countries, and I'm optimistic we'll see ultimately see it in the US too.
No one is questioning whether it'll work. We know it works. We're questioning America's ability to actually pass it into law. Which doesn't look good (especially as many other countries are slowly eroding their own universal healthcare options as the capitalist class manages to nibble away at it). And in that sense, we've been moving backwards
Problem is that all the other tracks can't be switched to.
I see what you're getting at, but this isn't the trolley problem. The trolley problem is predicated on the idea that killing one will save many, but it's assumed that everyone involved is innocent. It's a philosophical question about moral choice; is inaction that allows many to die more moral than an action that directly kills one? If the one person being killed is somehow culpable for the deaths of the other people, that changes the entire equation.
Also, that's not even what happened here. One person was killed, but just as many people are going to die today because United Healthcare. No one was saved. Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn't going to do anything.
(And, to any moderators or FBI agents reading this, I'm of course not advocating for that. Can you even imagine? The ruling class that has been crushing the American working class for decades suddenly getting put down like rabid dogs? With the very weapons that the gun manufacturers allowed to flood our streets in order to maximize their profits? Makes me sick just to fantasize think about it.)
Oh so this will save thousands of lives then? And here I thought they just hire a new CEO while making their services worse to fund the bonuses for the new one. Silly me.
They'll pause to call up more private security to keep themselves safe while they raise your premiums even more.
A Christmas Carol was just a story, not reality. You're not going to scare CEOs into doing the right thing, especially not with threat of death.
Well I guess we should just start killing people we don't like just in case it makes the world a better place then, right?
Cause that seems to be the theme of your lack of confidence positions.
They will adjust their cost/benefit analysis - of their personal security.
Ah, so lack of solid opinion is your defense of your support of random killings. You don't actually support it because you don't support anything... but you don't mind if someone else supports in just in case it might help you in the long run.
You're a professional bystander, someone who hopes someone else does all the hard work in making your life easier.
More private security means more people in their vicinity with guns. Hope none of those people has a loved one murdered by these assholes. Statistically that seems unlikely, and finding good security will get harder if demand spikes that much.
Would their security have good insurance? Cause otherwise that’s another potential gunner.
The rich are far more of a coward than your giving them credit to be. They are only so evil because of the lack of consequences, not in spite of.
Lmao, you honestly think any executive heard any message other than 'i need to spend more on corporate security and body guards'?
Yes, I do. Sure they'll do that, but I think they'll have a tiny bit of second guessing. Would certainly be more impactful if this was a trend rather than one off.
I hear we produce a lot of bullets compared to the number of MBA’s out there
Yeah, and they're mostly bought by bootlickers.
Not immediately, but hopefully the next CEO will learn a lesson from this and have more consideration on how the company affects people’s lives. I feel like CEOs of large corporations have lost the fear of the masses because they think they’re powerful. But they’re not, they just have a lot of money, a bullet can still kill them.
First time seeing a CEO get replaced for whatever reason?don't worry, we've all been there.
Blue cross just backflipped on time limits for anaesthesia, so
And now security services
This hit is probably more about a “pound of flesh” than saving (future) lives. (Source: pulling theories out of the air)
Do you have a solution to help the situation, or do you just like to complain?
If I don't have a solution, I have to agree with murdering people?
That's like if, in order to drive down the price of diapers I just started killing babies, then when you said that was evil and ineffective I just responded with, "oh yeah, well do you have a better idea, or are you just here to crap all over mine?"
All that said, yes, I do have plenty of common sense suggestions for reforms to the healthcare system that don't involve me murdering someone in cold blood, as it turns out.
I wasn't saying that, I was just asking what your solution was. I've seen a lot of people complaining about healthcare and going the doomer route that nothing can be changed, everything will always be awful, just shut up, accept it and die.
So, what's your suggestions?
The issue is you're telling people not to complain in response to someone saying "randomly murdering United Healthcare workers is ineffective and evil." It's an implicit approval of the murder, even while acknowledging that it won't change anything. It's a pretty rough look, even if that's not what you intended.
But, for suggestions that might work, get involved. Campaign for stricter regulations on the insurance industry. Call your congressional representatives. Run for office and work your way up the system, or become friends with someone who is and help them on their campaign. There's any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
One quibble, this guy wasn't a worker, he was the boss. The decision maker.
Have you done any of the items in your second paragraph? If so can you share how it's gone and what you judge the impact has been?
Sure, but he'll be replaced by another boss. Then another. How many should be assassinated?
I have. I've worked on a campaign for my local congressperson (at the time) whos platform I believed in. I met them through the campaign and got to know them personally. They won and are still serving in Congress today, and have done a good job over the years in my opinion (though I've since moved states and lost contact).
It was shockingly easy to get involved. Literally just approached them when they were starting up their campaign and asked to help. I knocked on doors and helped at campaign events, and I like to think that my contributions (and those of people like me) helped to get them elected.
And, as I say, they were someone that I had the personal cell number of and could contact when I had concerns.
There's any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
Are they really? How many people have been doing those things for decades with very little to show for it? How much campaigning can a parent paying for cancer treatment for their kid be reasonably expected to do? How many generic responses from representatives not listening to the concerns of their constituents should we trudge through?
Whether or not this shooter was motivated by the reasons we're all assuming is pretty irrelevant at this point. The simple fact that we're having this discussion at this scale demonstrates that people do not believe that the things you mentioned will improve things, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the situation we find ourselves in. Maybe vigilante action is not the answer but I think it's pretty clear that the usual responses you're giving are not resonating with people. Decision makers need to change that perception if they want to prevent people from looking outside the system for answers.
First, I think you're completely underplaying all the huge gains people have made over the years by doing exactly what I'm talking about. Especially at the state and local level.
But yeah, if you think I'm defending the system as perfect and unflawed, of course not. Of course most people don't want to have to dedicate their life to fixing the system. Of course they have other priorities. Kids, illness, etc.
And of course killing a man in cold blood is easier than spending years or decades fighting for the change you want to see.
But I've seen change accomplished by people who believe in the law and civic order. I've seen people make the system work. It is possible.
It's not easy. It requires someone to basically make it their life, and that's certainly not for everybody. But it can be done. And if you're at the point where you're throwing your life away by shooting a man in the middle of a NYC street, there are better ways to use your life than that.
Improving health coverage is theoretically possible, and later on they may get better, but the only things that will improve are a few blue states and even then it’s just small changes.
So dreams of large non violent change are as futile as the murderous rage. Best one can do is make more money or move to a better area or immigrate.
This is America, so unfortunately gun crime is just something there's no fix for. 🤷
The problem with the trolley problem is that this event isn't a trolley problem. Killing one CEO doesn't save lives, hell just be replaced and more guarded now.
We need proper reform and regulation.
- this will save precisely zero lives
- you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
- insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
Number 3 is the best argument for national insurance. (Saying public might imply it's tradable, this isn't what I've meant)
The health insurance industry is an abomination. It's completely across the purpose of keeping a population healthy to try to extract and concentrate wealth out of the process, and they're dug in like a tick.
Health care is not compatible with the free market as health care is logically something people would pay anything for.
National insurance denies claims all the time as well in some form.
Not to the extent of UHC
Do you have detailed numbers or just a feeling?
UHC covers far more people than most national systems despite not being national (I'm sure china is bigger, but most countries have much smaller populations). National systems often have ways of saying "that isn't covered" that mean the claim isn't even attempted. there are many different national systems with different rules. There are lots of other complications here that need to be studied in depth.
I think you're getting this kind of backwards. Individual claims aren't denied under universal healthcare. It's not opaque like a private insurer. Specific procedures are the thing not covered, and that becomes part of a national legislative/policy discussion.
What is the difference if you need a treatment you cannot get
The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It's not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said "often have ways" implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter's point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
Rate is just one data point. I'm back again to asking for in depth analysis. Do people who use UHC submit more bogus claims than those who use other insurance for example? There are many more important questions that need to be asked.
Holy moly, are you really this much of a bootlicker that you buy "bogus claims" as an excuse for insurance denying people life-saving treatment?
You're right, rate is just one data point. One I think you purposefully ignored now.
I've been around long enough to know that people who want to make a point will yell about one number in their favor and ignore everything else.
How's that leather taste mate?
Somebody posted a graph of the stats in another thread, and there was a great follow-up by somebody who had worked in claims at another company about just how bad those stats really were.
The national average for denied claims is 16%. UHC denies 39% of claims. The real kicker here, as they pointed out, is that this is after appeals. They worked at some branch of Blue Cross, which sits at 17% of claims, and said how most claims that are appealed are approved and that the vast majority of those that are denied are things like chiropractors putting in claims for procedures that end up being malpractice or stuff where the paperwork was wrong. Basically, if you get something denied by insurance, you're almost guaranteed to get it approved after an appeal. They said that for UHC to hit the numbers that they do, they would effectively have to deny almost every claim that they get that isn't a routine medical visit like an annual physical.
Wish more people talked about reform than violence tbh. Thinking about leaving lemmy since associating myself with some people here makes me sick
this will save precisely zero lives
Not if it starts a movement
It is not just this one life
See above
an insurance company that never denies any claims
Ideally that's called free universal healthcare, which we should have
you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
Yes, it's a shame the system failed to deliver justice. The solution isn't that justice shouldn't be served, it's that the system needs to be fixed so people like this are killed lawfully and by the state are not in a position where they profit off of human misery.
If he was no longer a threat, I'd endorse rehabilitation, the last emperor of China, who collaborated with the Japanese in WWII ended up living out his years working menial jobs and making real connections with people.
allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public
Are you proposing to not allow people to voice support for the murder?
You can't be serious 😂
His wife said on the news that he loved life...
Just his own
insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
Insurance companies in other countries survive just fine by paying out what they are expected to. Only in America is insurance as screwed up as it is.
I mean, if this was some dictator of a poor country slowly squeezing his citizens for money so they were hungry, some dying of starvation, and had shitty infrastructure so he can jaunt off to holidays in his private jet and live in a mansion with private guards, nobody would be saying this guy deserved to live. But a CEO squeezing sick people and their families for money, actively shortening lifespans and QoL... he's fine, let him off the hook?
It’s not a real life trolley problem, because there is no mechanism by which killing this CEO saves lives.
There is. There's reason to think the CEO was targeted specifically because of his shitty policies. If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
(This is not a call for violence, and I am not advocating for it, this is answering a direct question about how and why the mechanic might exist)
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
No. They'll hire private security and reduce their public exposure. Ironically, this will end up costing the company more and potentially increasing prices as a result.
The last thing they'll do is suddenly become introspective and sympathetic.
CEOs have faced zero consequences for their actions, the people they've harmed have exhausted all reasonable peaceful options. This incident alone will probably not change anything for the better but if those in power have no fear of the masses idk what else they expect to happen.
It's worse than that- they've been rewarded for their actions
It's more like "We found the guy pulling the lever on the trolley problem, only his trolley problem is 'people die or I get less money', and he has the trolley run over the people every time"
Unfortunately, there's a long line of twats behind him drooling over their chance to make the trolley run over human beings in exchange for money, so killing him doesn't really have the 'trolley running over people averted' effect that the trolley problem is usually based around. You're just punishing a shithead killer by killing him. Which, while hilarious, lacks the moral quandary that the trolley problem is meant to highlight, since no one is actually saved.
It's one of those things where the institutions of society can and must genuinely pursue the killer (albeit not at the level they actually are, expending a disproportionate amount of resources compared to if one of us commoners was killed), but if I saw the person who killed the CEO, I didn't.
[off topic]
Back in the day, I heard a lecture on the tactics of terrorist groups.
The IRA was particularly effective in assassinations. People thought they had an vast army of trained killers on hand.
Actually, the number of shooters was small, maybe fifty in all.
What made them so dangerous was that they had a powerful 'rear echelon.'
When the shooter arrived in town, he'd have three or four drivers waiting for him, a choice of safe houses, and more than one doctor to go to if he were to be injured.
What ultimately made the IRA win and get the Good Friday agreement was they targeted (ironically) high insurance properties. Take away human lives? Meaningless. Take away the money? You get a response.
IDK, the "we only need to be lucky once" is a hell of a message.
Almost as if you need a military wing and a smart political wing.
The patterns of behavior between shareholders, boards of directors, and executives is what's killing people. The same role can be re-cast with different actors.
It's not that CEOs need to die, it's that that larger pattern of behavior that gets rich by killing people needs to end. Maybe this spooks other people who are part of that larger pattern into stopping, maybe it makes them do it more, stealthier, and with bodyguards. It's hard to say.
At the very least, we should all jump at every chance to help things without hurting anybody, wherever we do find it. "Necessary violence" comes with a big ol heap of plausible deniability, and it's a pretty big ask for somebody to handle it responsibly.
The justification will be alluring even in circumstances where it is not legitimate.
Multitrack drifting? I'm sorry someone had to say it. Eat the rich.
What do you call an American health care CEO dead on the street in Manhattan?
A tragedy.
Have some simpathy for the poor bystanders that had to witness the horrible sight of an American Health insurance CEO...
Yeah, him being dead only makes it slightly better
A good start?
Holy fuck. Not saying I agree (also not saying I don't) but I laught at that answer.
That's one of those jokes that also works for any kind of hate speech. In fact, that's where it came from.
Laughing at this shows how easily you're mobilized for any kind of terrorism.
This won't make you think.
It did in fact make me think and I thank you for that. You won't like the outcome of that thinking, though.
First of all, I'm far far away from being "mobilized". I do agree that you could call what the killer did "terrorism" though, as he seeks to influence behavior by mortal fear (terror). Wheter the end justifies the means (as some would argue for example for "eco-terrorism) I don't know. But I see how some people may feel like all other, more civil, avenues to change their life and the system for the better have been blocked off. But again, I'm far from being "mobilized" as in encouraging such behavior or even picking up a gun myself.
Now why did I laugh at the response? Simple: It's morbid and unexpected, which are two aspects that I often find humorous.
Do I feel bad about laughing? No. The reason and the main difference to the "hate speech" you refer to are twofold: First, this joke is punching up, not punching down, as hate speech usually is. Second, hate speech is usually about what people are (black, asian, transgender, gay). This guy in contrast was loathed for what he did. That's a major difference, since you can't change what you are but what you do is in your hands.
I would love to hear a response from you but the condescension and smugness in your tone of writing makes me think that this won't make you think.
🖕
That cute reply is par for the course, too. Enjoy some more murders 😘
Preventative services?
You can call him anything. It's not like he's gonna come anyway.
A nurse sub, because they always seem to have the inside healthcare scoop, posted active litigation on the guy. Something about stock dumping in advance of stock value drops, I know very little about trading or the lingo, such that shareholders lost money. And then he died outside a shareholder meeting. Speculation, but so is all of this.
That said, social contagion factors still apply. The idea is sticking with people, as scary as that thought is.
That CEO isn't on either of the tracks. He's the engineer who got shot for choosing mass death himself.
That’s only if this becomes a trend and many rich people die.
Even then, it’s not a guarantee that the rich won’t manipulate the masses with scapegoating.
Just like with a lot of thought experiments, you have to assume people will react rationally, so far they have which is kind of rare.
Don't worry he'll be replaced with someone just as bad by the end of next week and they still have the same policies in place now that they did on Tuesday, it's like the trolley problem but the "diversion" split the train so it could kill both sides of the track and they'll recouple the cars on the other side.
This has been reported a few times for inciting violence. While it is walking a line, I don't see OP asking for anyone to be harmed. It was presented in the context of a popular thought experiment. Other posts with the trolley problem often include wealthy people in the scenarios, so I think there is good precedence for keeping this post up.
I agree that this post is uncomfortable and possibly insensitive due to timing as someone has actually died and this post is questioning the value of that death. Many fields of economics assign a monetary value to human life, which similarly makes people feel uncomfortable, but those are valuable conversations to have.
I thought this through a bit and try to error on the side of keeping posts up, but I make mistakes and I am open to feedback. If you want to give anonymous feedback you leave a report (I can't see who writes reports but presumably admins can).
EDIT: Deep breath everyone. Just to be clear, I greatly value people that make reports, I think we all should, its an important part of the ecosystem.
It wont save any lives. The next ceo will be a scumbag as well. the scum floats to the top of any organization.
not a terrible point really, but it's also important to remember how quickly "kill bad guy to save many good guy" can turn into some government just labeling anyone who disagrees with them a bad guy and killing them, or can turn into anarchy. either way preventing murder from taking place, however justified, is an important part of what keeps society from collapsing.
But society is collapsing. The system is completely failing to prevent murder on an industrial scale.
We just elected Trump for a second time. The next four years will make the problems that let that happen even worse. This is what societal breakdown looks like. We're just in the slow phase right now.
in other words, we are in the phase where we can still save it
Maybe. If so, yesterday was a step in the right direction.
get some reading comprehension buddy, I don't disagree with OP. I'm just urging people to remember the potential consequences of something like this becoming too common.
again, I don't disagree with op. I'm only saying that we need to mind the consequences of this kind of thing. also, modifying a quote is dishonest. I did not place [UN] in front of justified, because part of my point was that the assassination of that CEO was justified. so in summary, you need to improve your reading comprehension.
Imagine thinking there's a "right" answer to the Trolley Problem.
This isn't technically the trolly problem, sorry to be pedantic. But the trolly problem is not in the deaths either track would cause, but in the decision to actively pull the lever and make yourself responsible for the outcome. Inaction means allowing what will be to be.
Eg, if the train is heading towards three people, and you can pull the lever to send it towards one, congratulations, you saved two lives. BUT you just made yourself responsible for the murder of one. Whereas before, you would not have been responsible for the death of the three.
Doesn't matter how dressed up the problem is, involvement means making yourself responsible for murder.
In choosing to do nothing, you still made a choice, which arguably makes you responsible for those deaths too. That's why the trolley problem is such a great morally ambiguous thought experiment.
eat the rich
Anyways, I started blasting.
This isn't a trolley problem. Killing CEOs is not going to save any more lives or "fix the system" in any way.
There's no guarantee that the new CEO will be better or worse, and if they feel threatened enough they'll just hire security.
The secret service can't even be 100% effective, and most would be assassins have been remarkably incompetent. Trump still got hit.
That fat sack of trash did not get hit by a bullet.
It was ketchup on his hands!
That's more believable than the pageantry we witnessed.
They’re being manipulated. I lost my dad to these fucking ghouls. I texted my mom a message making fun of this dude getting shot and my mom took the side of the CEO and said I’m terrible for wishing death on someone.
He is one of many in the system who killed father and my moms defending him? All she does all day is watch liberal mainstream media who are all slobbing his knob about how this is a tragedy. She’s toast, she’s totally brainwashed by them.
All lives are sacred? Tell that to the healthcare industry in the USA, it is a massive shit show and an out of control dumpster fire. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA is directly related to healthcare. Someone buy the shooter a ticket to Brazil or a decent country without extradition to the USA. The health insurance companies has more blood on their hands.
... do you think killing a few CEOs is going to stop the shitty healthcare system we have? It's nowhere near that easy to fix this broken system. There are thousands of MBAs just waiting in the wings to take over and do the exact same things.
It's not a solution, it's a reaction, and it doesn't fix shit. Just escalates an already volatile situation.
France survived the Reign of Terror.
People survive lots of heinous shit, that doesn't mean it helps.
Modern France is better than monarchist France.
Built on the blood of the Terrors, executing many innocent people, including the man who was against the executions in the first place, Robespierre
"Against" > "For"
Mostly due to the efforts of a lot of people working to make things better through political and social action.
But hey, they had that one time where they killed a bunch of people, that must have been the reason their lives are so much better. Clearly
Non violent action has never brought power to the table without a separate violent movement adding pressure. Not even Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King.
It only took a couple more civil wars, thousands of political arbitrary executions, 2 empiralist dictatorships and 2 monarchies to get a stable democracy about a century later.
Time to get started then.
Semi-stable based on recent events.
Unstable government but still functioning as intended, no one has a clear majority in the parlement so a government who doesn't talk to everyone is going to get trashed and that's what happened. This was very democratic.
The US doesn't have a parliament. Neither party talks to everyone. There are women and ethnic minorities in Congress, which is definitely not what was originally intended.
This thread is about France, so I was talking about the current French situation.
Yup. Better take the long view.
do you think killing a few CEOs is going to stop the shitty healthcare system we have?
Even if it doesn't, what is there to lose?
Your humanity.
You know, the thing you're claiming the CEO doesn't have
👏
10/10 retort, well played
Is it really more human to quietly accept a society where there are frequent go fund me’s for kids with cancer?
Yeah, no way this was like normal cases where estranged wives or business rivals hire hit men.
Killing a CEO is still doing nothing about the deaths caused by the insurance industry. How would it save lives of people harmed by privatized healthcare? If anything, it makes that anti-private-healthcare crowd look like a bunch of murderous zealots and will drive away any sympathy, making the problem worse. See: effect on indian raids on views of Native American rights, effect of Hamas attacks on views regarding Palestine, etc.
This is more like you let the train go and kill 5 people, or you pull the lever and kill one person, but that track loops back around onto the same track and kills the 5 people anyway, and then keeps going and kills 5 more people just tied on the part of the track the train already passed.
Let's be real, many would pull the lever anyway because they just want to feel like they did something about it.
That's a nice intellectual way to package the immediate thrill people feel when someone does something really violent they wish they had the guts to do. No, no, no, we're not like that, we're the enlightened ones, just rationally weighing one life against many! But be honest, it's like Spock backing off from his emotion outburst of happiness when he realized Kirk was still alive after thinking he'd killed him. No, I'm simply gratified that Starfleet didn't lose a valuable officer!
Gonna leave this here:
The political system needs to change, killing CEOs will change nothing. They are just some random corpo people with a good work history and education that get paid well to act in the interest of shareholders. Nothing will change with this death. The US public just seems too ignorant about this massive issue. The US is a democracy and if the public actually pushed for strong healthcare reform and didn't vote for someone who wants to cut healthcare benefits they could get improvement. All I see is radical violence LARPing that leads to nothing and some people acting all high and mighty acting self just which argue to kill like the top 1% and redistribute it and demonize them ignoring the fact that the masses aren't behind them. This is lemmy, this is not real life! The chaos this causes just leads to more suffering without a solution. And a random guy who had the job of CEO died because he acted as he was supposed to in his job. Returning value for shareholders, since if he doesn't he gets replaced with the next guy.
This is not a trolly problem. Insurance companies are companies ir they are designed to maximize profit. That is the problem. The objective of insurance companies is to make a profit not save people's lives.
This smells like the second amendment argument about defending against a tyrannical government. Please, take inventory of materiel and finances before you go down that road.
I would argue there's another deep hypocrisy lying with people who insist such figureheads should be killed, but the only action they take is blathering about it on public forums.
Be the change you seek, go set an example if you think you know what's right.
But pitting us against the ruling class in this way isn't going to be a winning proposition. The best you'll get is a massive and severe security clampdown.
This thread is refreshing. The healthcare system needs to be completely reworked but killing executives isn't gonna do it. They'll replace him, set up security services, and change absolutely zero features of their business.
And when other groups you don't agree with start sending "messages"?
This is brutally flawed and simplistic thinking that doesn't survive real world scrutiny.
First of all, it is not a trolley problem because killing one CEO doesn't change anything, and you're not about to start a big enough wave of CEO killing to make a difference. He will be replaced with a different CEO, who will be just as greedy, who will now expense bodyguards and charge them back to your copays.
Secondly, we still don't know why he was killed. Have you considered that this could literally just be a case of corporate espionage and assassination for money? Even if he was killed by a disgruntled patient, that doesn't mean that patient did it on their own vs having their grief taken advantage of and manipulated by a corporate rival.
Thirdly, I really can't express how much this isn't a trolley problem given that you also literally saved zero lives by doing this. Really feels like you don't understand what the trolley problem is at a fundamental level.
This is the most Lemmy ass thread imaginable. A bunch of terminally online tech geeks going philosophy 101 to boost their own ego, by attaching themselves to someone who is and was willing to actually do something.
I'm arguing that death squads of one v one are like death squads of fifty v one.
That is not a country that I want to live in. That country, the death squad country, will kill more than thousands.
But whatever, OP. It is just one must actually occupy the moral high ground to claim it. And assassination is not a moral choice. But you do have a funny picture.
Haha.
It's just poor taste to comment on someone's personal tragedy that has nothing to do with anon, more so gloating as if that event is instigating real reform and anon adding their precious opinions is a necessary part of the public discourse or whatever. It's not a trolley problem because anon can realize they don't have to give their two cents on every news item (the processing costs are higher these days) and that's the equivalent of "there's no trolley"
No
Killing the evil fuck doesn't save any lives. The board (?) still had the meeting he was on his way to and they are still going to continue to deny basic human rights to the people who pay them for it.
The reality is that this is just yet another sign of immaturity and arrested development. I forget where I first heard it but... folk been watching WAY too much Steven Universe and similar warm and cozy shit. They think that by always taking the high road they are better people and the world will be a better place because if you do the right thing everyone else will.
When the reality is that people like the dead fuck prey on naivety like that.
If we ever find out who did it we are sure to find out they are also a pretty monstrous person. But, as satisfying as this has been, it changes nothing.
The reality is that this is just yet another sign of immaturity and arrested development. I forget where I first heard it but… folk been watching WAY too much Steven Universe and similar warm and cozy shit. They think that by always taking the high road they are better people and the world will be a better place because if you do the right thing everyone else will.
I'm confused, didn't you just agree that killing him has no effect? If so, why are you seemingly condemning the people who are condemning the people who are celebrating the killing?
I can assure you that I have no illusions about the brutality of human existence, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't oppose senseless violence when I see it.
Its the idea that "Oh, they are a human being with loved ones just like you". When the reality is that he was a leech upon humanity who caused internally measured suffering and death. And his family benefited from that.
But, because the power of friendship and candy cane sandwiches, he is still a human being and we need to feel bad. It doesn't matter how many people they murder for a buck, they are still a person and you are the bad person for not feeling bad for their death.
Its the idea that “Oh, they are a human being with loved ones just like you”. When the reality is that he was a leech upon humanity who caused internally measured suffering and death. And his family benefited from that.
He literally was a human being with loved ones just like you and me. The fact that the vast majority of people seem incapable of perceiving that reality is absolutely horrifying.
A leech is a leech. A human being is a human being. If you refuse to recognize the difference, you're just as evil as anyone else. You don't know anything about him or his life, which is why it's so easy for you to dehumanize him. I wonder if you would feel the same if you had been there on the sidewalk and watched him gasping for air as he bled out. I wonder if you would feel the same if you had attended his funeral. I would hope not, but I'm honestly not sure anymore, my faith in basic human empathy and decency is somewhat shaken of late.
I'm not even saying that you need to feel bad. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be supporting senseless gun violence and extrajudicial murder, no matter who the victim is. It's like supporting genocide, or chemical weapons. This kind of shit isn't good for anyone, and if you don't understand that you're a fucking idiot.
Got it. Being amused at the death of someone who has immensely profited off the death and suffering of others is genocide.
Thanks for the demonstration of what I was talking about, I guess?
You've immensely profited off the death and suffering of others. Every single amenity of modern life that you possess came at a cost. Whatever nation-state you reside in waged countless wars to secure the resources you now enjoy. Everything that you eat and drink is provided to you courtesy of a chain of exploitative corporations that are doing catastrophic damage to the planet and human lives. Everything that you have ever done, including breathing, has exacerbated climate change. Every time you have paid your bills and taxes, you have continued to support this exploitative system. You are actively ruining this planet for untold future generations simply by continuing to selfishly remain alive and being too cowardly to rebel in any meaningful fashion against a system which you clearly understand to be violent and destructive. Shame on you.
Luckily, I don't advocate for murder under any circumstances, because I am not a monster.
He literally was a human being with loved ones just like you and me.
I don't make millions off of denying life saving healthcare to millions of people, which I think is more important than having loved ones. The worst atrocities are committed by people with loved ones.
They are still horrible people and the world is better off when they die.
I love this "greater good" end-run-around the law that we follow as members of society; like premeditated murder of a soulless CEO is somehow okay.
How is ambushing ever not weak and cowardly? Swords at dawn if you're going to make it personal.
This is not how we solve this. Killers are tried and punished in accordance with laws we all agree on, here.
What you're missing, I think, is that ambushing isn't weak or cowardly. It's just setting up the most favorable conditions for the "fight" as possible.
If you're engaging in an unbalanced war, and anyone targeting a rich target would be since the ability to hire security means you'll be going against superior numbers from the beginning, you use the tactics available to you.
You may or may not agree that it's a war. You might not agree that the shooter is justified. But the shooter most likely is at war in their mind, or (assuming it is part of things) someone that hired them does.
We aren't allowed to duel, and someone challenged to one has no obligation to agree to it. You can't usually even make the challenge without running into legal barriers. You send a letter to someone saying "hey, let's have a sword fight", expect a knock on your door. It simply isn't an option. You can't even arrange trial by champions, where you would face off against a chosen opponent and the other person would be bound by the outcome.
Again, regardless of whether or not you agree or like it, class warfare can be literal, at least in the minds of the people willing to wage such a war. Further, when one person uses their weapons to cause death and misery to non combatants, you can't be surprised when those non combatants find weapons of their own and fight back any way they can.
That's the thing you're missing. From the state of mind of the populace, the CEO I question has a track record of causing death and misery by using the weapons of wealth and power. This means that the question isn't one of peace time, it's a question, for that frame of mind, of using the best tactics to achieve a goal.
Like it or not, the shooter achieved the goal of disrupting the machinery of that company, at least temporarily. They achieved the goal of making it known that wealth is not bulletproof, which is a very strong idea when the populace feels disempowered. That isn't cowardice, that's just good tactics. It may or may not end up being good strategy, but only time can show that.
If people are in a state of war, and I promise you that a shit ton of people do view the current assault on humanity by financial means as war, then ambush is a perfect tool for asymmetric warfare. It's a tool to magnify your forces.
It's funny how voting for a pro-genocide government was trolleyish and so had a moral imperative, while approving of this killing meant that people were irredeemable monsters.
I honestly cannot believe how fucking stupid the reaction to this has been. I did see that reddit reacted similarly, so at least y'all are on par with the average redditor when it comes to intelligence. It relieves me to know that this is less an issue with Lemmy extremism and more an issue with basic reasoning skills.
How about you name one single human being, not even thousands, who has benefited from this contract killing? Whose life has been saved by "pulling this lever"? Explain yourself.
It helped my mood considerably. Stress can be deadly.
It worsened my mood drastically. So that seems like a net negative so far.
Collaborationists don't count.
Do you have a job? Live in a house? Have any family or friends? Do you eat food?
Unless you answer no to all of these questions, I unfortunately must inform you that you too are a collaborationist.
Actually don't bother, the fact that you're using the internet already proves that you are.
That is such a lazy bullshit argument. "You have to exist in the system as it is now, so you can't possibly oppose that system". There is a difference between doing what you must to survive in a system, and opposing efforts to reform that system.
It's just the inconvenient truth. You are all so desperate to prove that you're opposed to the system, because deep down you know that you're a part of it. None of us can escape this guilt.
I'm also desperate to prove that I'm opposed to the system, but unfortunately I'm intelligent enough to understand the difference between a rational attempt at reforming the system, and random acts of violence that actually cause the system to become even more dysfunctional. I can't naively cheer on this stuff like you, because I understand how futile and counterproductive it is towards the end goal of reform.
Honestly, I suspect many you gave up on changing anything for the better a long time ago. Now you just want to watch the world burn. I still have hope and determination to change things, and for that I get called a collaborationist and bootlicker by edgelord keyboard warriors. Oy vey!
It's just the inconvenient truth. You are all so desperate to prove that you're opposed to the system, because deep down you know that you're a part of it.
Shifting goalposts. You have not addressed my criticism of your goofy point here. Oppressors, collaborators, and rebels all have to exist within the systems that exist, and that has nothing to do with each group's intentions for the future of that system.
None of us can escape this guilt.
The assignment of moral culpability is reliant on the ability of a person to make a choice. When I pick up my prescriptions, that has no impact on whether or not little Billy gets his heart operation. No choice I could make would impact that, except through my political activity or, failing that, through some sort of violence.
Deontological Ethics (you decided to debate morality with a Theology BA) is the dominant system in the West, and it does not put any moral requirement on agents to actively oppose injustice. I personally reject that system, but it is dominant in the Abrahamic religions. Collective responsibility is not incompatible with this system, but has been almost entirely rejected in Christian traditions, the only real exception being original sin.
I personally subscribe to a mix of different utilitarian systems, and utilitarianism has no concept of collective moral responsibility. It would also not require someone to refrain from living or functioning in an imperfect society. If becoming a hermit and living off your own garden won't help, then there is no obligation to do so.
I can't naively cheer on this stuff like you, because I understand how futile and counterproductive it is towards the end goal of reform.
I certainly don't claim perfect knowledge, but I feel confident in saying that I'm far from naive. I think I have a better understanding of both the morality and the politics than you do. Politically speaking, the kinds of reforms required to fix our healthcare system are far greater than anything ever achieved without at least a credible threat of violence.
The amount of wealth opposing us is nearly unfathomable, and it has control of the media, what's left of our educational system, and the means to spy on our communication. An uninformed democracy is no democracy.
On top of that, we now have a fascist executive with both the legislative and judicial branches under his thumb. If we somehow manage to oust the fascists, it will be almost impossible to keep the neoliberals from regaining power. As we are seeing in France right now, Neoliberals greatly prefer losing to a fascist over losing to a socialist/progressive.
There is no plan of action that gives us a violence free route to an equitable healthcare system for at least the next 50 years. Violence won't be sufficient on it's own, but it will be necessary. Public support for this shooter actually decreases the amount of actual violence that might be otherwise required.
I still have hope and determination to change things, and for that I get called a collaborationist
No, I didn't call you a collaborationist because of your hope and determination. Hope and determination are great, but aren't worth much without a viable plan of action. We have tried all the "right" things for decades and have only lost ground. Maybe it's time to move on to the "next" thing.
Your demand for a civil approach is literally what collaborationists have always done. We aren't going to win by limiting ourselves to a system designed by our adversaries to keep us from winning. I know you found comfort in the idea that history is over, but that's just not the case. I wish it were.
Shifting goalposts. You have not addressed my criticism of your goofy point here. Oppressors, collaborators, and rebels all have to exist within the systems that exist, and that has nothing to do with each group’s intentions for the future of that system.
Let me explain more fully. You are correct that all three groups have to exist within the extant systems. What you fail to understand is that all three groups can and almost always do exist within individual people. When you post on Lemmy like you're currently doing, you could maybe lay claim to the role of a rebel, if I were being generous. But when you go to work, you're wearing the hat of the oppressor. When you pick up your prescription and pay the copay to your health insurance company, you're a collaborationist. When you go to college and graduate with a BA, you're a collaborationist.
This entire argument stems from my refusal to reduce a man to his occupation. It would be nice if human beings could be divided into neat little boxes of different types (rebels/oppressors) and we could deal with them accordingly. Unfortunately, the human condition is not so clear cut, it's frequently messy.
Furthermore, even if we were to ignore all of the nuance that I just pointed out, and go with a rough estimation, there's a second major problem with your approach. Namely, it's impossible to understand who is playing which part until the dust has settled. Was Thomas Jefferson an oppressor, a rebel, or a collaborationist? I would imagine his contemporaries would have considered him primarily a rebel due to his prominent role in the American revolution, while modern audiences might consider him an oppressor due to his extensive slave holding. Conducting business dealings with Napoleon Bonaparte seems like the work of a collaborationist.
Point is, even with historical perspective and knowing how events turned out, it can still be difficult to understand the roles that certain people played in society. How much more futile a task to attempt to categorize people into groups without the advantage of knowing the outcome of their actions. You might as well be throwing darts with a blindfold on, that's the level of accuracy you're going to get with that approach.
The assignment of moral culpability is reliant on the ability of a person to make a choice. When I pick up my prescriptions, that has no impact on whether or not little Billy gets his heart operation. No choice I could make would impact that, except through my political activity or, failing that, through some sort of violence.
I don't believe in free will, so this argument is kind of moot for me. But if I did, I would argue that there is almost always a choice you can make that can impact something, even if it's nearly impossible to identify what that specific choice is. In other words, there is always something you can do, but as a human being it's extremely difficult to identify what that something is, partially because we aren't as clever as we pretend to be and partially because society intentionally obfuscates the choices that we do have.
Of course, not believing in free will also moots many of the traditional ethical perspectives, but for most purposes I find deontological ethics to be a relatively reasonable viewpoint. I think the important thing to remember about utilitarianism is that there are very strict limits to our ability to measure the consequences of our actions. We are not intelligent enough to predict the butterfly effect of our actions, so attempting to assess the consequences of certain actions is quite the tricky task. Deontological ethics simplifies things to a level that we can engage with more easily.
Politically speaking, the kinds of reforms required to fix our healthcare system are far greater than anything ever achieved without at least a credible threat of violence.
I beg to differ, just look at the New Deal. When the Great Depression happened, American society did not descend into lawlessness and anarchy. The American people did not resort to murdering the robber barons who had gotten us into that mess. They elected a progressive candidate in FDR, who enacted massive legislative reform that far exceeds the level of reform needed for our current Healthcare system.
Nonetheless, you are not wrong in your assessment of the current situation. It certainly is dire, and I don't hold much hope for a similar solution as occurred back then. But it's worth pointing out that it really did happen through political means less than 100 years ago in this country.
It's also worth noting that FDR is exactly the kind of person that the current mob would be putting on the list of assassination targets. He would be a very easy target as well, with the polio and all. The current social climate would literally eat FDR alive and he would never get anywhere near the presidency. He was the epitome of an old money, American aristocrat. And yet he did more for the working class than any president before or since. I wonder how many people had that on their bingo card in 1930.
There is no plan of action that gives us a violence free route to an equitable healthcare system for at least the next 50 years. Violence won’t be sufficient on it’s own, but it will be necessary. Public support for this shooter actually decreases the amount of actual violence that might be otherwise required.
This is where you lose me. You can't know these things. You can't know the future 50 years in advance. You can’t know the overall impact of this event until it actually unfolds. And pretending that you do is the classic way to convince yourself to do and support horrific things in the present day.
Hope and determination are great, but aren’t worth much without a viable plan of action.
I'm working on that. I already know that assassination probably isn't going to be a huge part of a viable plan of action.
We have tried all the “right” things for decades and have only lost ground. Maybe it’s time to move on to the “next” thing.
Have we? We've flip flopped back and forth between Dems and Republicans for the past 50 years, there hasn't been any clear, indisputable mandate from the American voters as to what the government should be doing. We as a people cannot agree on a path forward, so we continue to languish.
I don't even remotely believe that history is over, I intend to advocate for massive social restructuring. But I also understand that attempting to brute force things is foolish and counterproductive.
You are interpreting the word "collaborationist" so broadly as to make it entirely useless. Apparently you would think that every prisoner in a work camp is a collaborationist if they don't immediately cut their own throats. The system we live in is way too all encompassing to somehow fight from the outside. Some level of interaction with the system is a requirement just to survive, and fighting back against the system can require even more participation in that system. You are trying to defend yourself against being called a collaborationist by muddying the waters and making the word functionally useless. When I used the word, it was in reference to the actual rhetoric you are using that is directly related to the conflict between American workers and Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have setup a system where they can kill us en masse with total impunity, but fighting back is out of bounds. You are taking a stance that is entirely unnecessary to take for any other reason but to defend the rules that keep us trapped in a broken system.
This entire argument stems from my refusal to reduce a man to his occupation.
When state catches the killer and puts them in jail, is it reducing them to nothing but being a killer? When we take certain actions in life, that is going to have consequences in how society interacts with us in the future. This creep wasn't just a health insurance CEO, he was by many measures the worst health insurance CEO. He traded other people's lives for cash, and that should have consequences. That's not a failure to recognize the breadth of his humanity, it's saying that actions have consequences.
Was Thomas Jefferson an oppressor, a rebel, or a collaborationist?
Who said that everyone can only fit in a single box? That sure wasn't me, I will point out though that doing away with slavery (to the extent that we did anyways) involved killing a whole lot of slave owners.
I don’t believe in free will, so this argument is kind of moot for me.
I personally think that free will as a concept is inherently nonsensical, and therefore I don't have a position on it at all. I'll call that agreement to that point. However, I'm not convinced that the concept of morality is entirely dependent on the concept of free will. A machine with a faulty mechanism still just does what physics say it must do, but we still call it a malfunction (bad function) and expect it to be modified to work properly. Anyways, I don't really want to delve into a nuanced discussion of moral systems.
I beg to differ, just look at the New Deal. When the Great Depression happened,..They elected a progressive candidate in FDR...
Same war, different battle. That was a strategy that worked, to an extent. However, what works once in war doesn't always keep working. The oligarchs learned from FDR and, when we tried this again in 2020, it failed. American oligarchs have a stranglehold on the media and decades more knowledge in how to manipulate voters. Eventually we will need progressive representation, but a lot is going to have to happen to make that possible again. We might get lucky if Trump's presidency fails in the right ways. If nothing else, Trump is great as an agent of chaos. Maybe he shuffles the deck and suddenly we have a credible electoral strategy, but I'm not counting on it.
American society did not descend into lawlessness and anarchy.
I disagree. The rise of organized crime in the US didn't start with prohibition. It started because oligarch strategies to divide the public on ethnic lines effectively created a bunch of isolated resistance forces. It evolved into something else, but the justification these groups used was always that their group had been unfairly shut out of prosperity. If they weren't going to be given their due, then they would take it. It's more self serving than a targeted assassination, but it was definitely lawlessness and anarchy.
It’s also worth noting that FDR is exactly the kind of person that the current mob would be putting on the list of assassination targets.
So far, exactly one particularly bad oligarch has been assassinated. You are making some pretty wild assumptions based on a single data point. In an oblique way, this reminds me of your point on utilitarianism. We don't know with certainty what any action we take might lead to. Maybe this CEO was going to be the next FDR, or maybe the next Hitler. Maybe Trump will have a change of heart (or grow one) and be the next FDR himself. Anything is possible but, call me a skeptic. This is not a valid way to argue anything.
This is where you lose me. You can’t know these things. You can’t know the future 50 years in advance.
No, but I can know history, and I can see what's going on in the world around me. Wealth and power in this country are both almost entirely in the hands of psychopaths. The psychopaths have a global disinformation machine with effectively infinite funding. The harder we have pushed for change, the more effort they have put into dividing the people into subgroups and convincing them to fight each-other. It's a strategy that works extremely well. It's human nature that the only way to heal those divisions is to give people a common enemy, and that has to be the oligarchs. Moving society is like advancing the plot in a book. You can't convince the masses to do something because it is the smart thing to do. They need a narrative, and assassinations make for an interesting story. I guarantee you that the oligarchs are more concerned about that aspect of this event than anything else. Suddenly all these people across all of their carefully created subgroups are unified in expressing hatred for their actual enemies.
How so?